statewide smoking ban effective July 2010 - only places exempt are cigar bars & casinos owned by the native american communities..............well, we all knew it would happen sooner or later.... it needed to happen for the good of all - whether we want to see that or not. People really want to be able to go to a eating establishment & enjoy a nice night out. I used to smoke too & at that time in my life did not like being in a smoke filled room & trying to enjoy friends & have a good time. I always went home after shooting pool in league & hated the smell I carried into my home & the headaches I had for the rest of the night after being in the smoke filled bar rooms. Yes I know - there will be many that write in & say "you think drinking didn't do that?" of course it did but smoke was actually a worse culprit. Mant tavern owners are concerned that business will fall off - yes I am sure it will, but many non-smokers that quit going to these places that allowed smoking will come back - they can now enjoy the places. It will be an adjustment but it will eventually even out.

First, they start with something lots of people don't like. Whats the next thing that they will try to ban? Smooking in my home? Drinking in my home? Staying out after 9P.M.? Fuzzy puppy's and sunshine?

You can't pick or choose what freedoms you like or dislike. Everyone should have freedom.

Here's my idea.. If you do not like smoking in eateries, or bars then do not enter them. I own a restuarant/full service bar. It is clean and SMOKE FREE! You can come in with your friends/family and have a drink and sit at the bar, in a decent atmosphere, no smoke, no blaring music, just good, clean fun. You can also choose to dine with us. Onieda county has a list of smoke free estalishments. Please frequent them! Now this does not mean, lock your self up in your house and pout because "I cannot leave my home until 2010 because of the smoking" Again, there are plenty of places in central and northern WI that are smoke free. This was our choice to open a smoke free estalishment over 3 years ago. At the time I was a full fledged, pack a day, smoker. (I am no longer a smoker) we had the right to make that choice as a business owner.

Our U.S. Government should NOT be messing with free enterprise. But I guess they now own 1/3 of our car manufactuers because of messing with free enterprise.

We are losing our Rights and our freedoms that this country was founded on. This goes right back to "one nation under God" We'll lose that one too.. You don't have to like these freedoms but they are just that freedoms..

Oh, the whole harming others thing, well.. again frequent establishments in your area that are smoke free.. Show your support by entering these places. Tell them you appreciate the fact that they are smoke free.

I am not for or against the smoking ban, I just see many sides to it.. It is a personal choice and a business choice.

I just wish the "Non Smokers" would support the Non Smoking estalishments more often. Why?? Because, Non smokers go to bars, eateries and other smoking places.. Smokers DO NOT come to my place at all.. Its easy, quit going to smoking estalishments.. Frequent the smoke free ones in you area.. That also leaves all of us the freedom and the choice.. It is a beautiful thing..

Kerry Tobin wrote:If you don't want to get shot on the street don't leave your house. If you want safe food to eat make it yourself. If you want a fair wage for reasonable hours employ yourself.

They all sound like pretty stupid arguments don't they?

In my opinion, they sound like melodramatic, inaccurate comparisons being used inadequately to justify your own point of view, more so than they sound like relevant examples that help you prove your point.Put them into context without the partisan hyperbole, and it does exactly the opposite of what you intended for your argument.

- If it were both lawful and approved by the business owners for patrons to shoot one another in certain establishments, then yes.. people should not go to said establishment if they do not want to be shot. - If it were lawful for business owners to choose to encourage the serving of tainted food in their establishment and they advertised as such, then yes.. people who did not wish to be served tainted food should choose not go to these establishments.- And if an employer openly advertised that they offered unfair compensation to their employees, job-seekers could look elsewhere if they did not agree with these business practices.

And to add my own comparison to the mix: If one is offended by or feels that their well-being (moral as opposed to physical in this case) is damaged by their being exposed to exotic entertainers if they want go out to a bar, what makes more sense?; For the malcontent individual to go on a crusade to get laws passed outlawing any establishment from having such entertainment... or for the dissident to simply avoid such places and go to an establishment that doesn't advocate such an environment?

Your free to do what you want, until it has a detrimental effect on others...

In this case, I agree with you if it has a detrimental effect on others, and if they are being exposed to it against their will. But the situation you are referring to is people willingly going somewhere where they know they will be exposed to something, and then complaining about it. The two are completely different, in my opinion.Even as a smoke-free business owner, "Goodfood4you" seems to think that it is more important for consumers and business owners to keep their 'right to choose' intact, as opposed to eliminating the choice of one faction to placate another.

I believe that this model is a slippery societal slope, and unfortunately many of the people who support this small change in precedent may not identify with the 'big picture' implications that some of us are worried about, until they themselves are on the other side of an (almost certainly impending) elimination of their own choice in order to pacify an opposition.

The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese....

According to your logic we should ban everything that can possibly injure others.

Where shall I start???

Drinking alchol should be banned from bars due to the amount of people that go to a bar become over intoxicated and get into a "car accident" with another person. How many people have had the **** kicked out of them by somebody that was drunk.

Cars should be banned for the exhaust that they put out that people breath in.

Guns should definetly be banned.

How many toxins do airplanes put into the air?

I absolutely hate when I go out into a smoke filled bar. I hate cigerette smoke. I will be happy when they ban cigerettes. However, this world does not revolve around you or I and banning cigerettes from bars is just plain wrong.

Maybe the solution would be to say a bar is a private club and therefore it may be a designated smoking area.

I think that the buerocrates should work on making cigerettes less harmful to people and not banning them.

Future topics of interest; (maybe we should save this topic for when the cigertte ban dies down.)Is it against city ordinance to have a gentlemans club?Why can men walk around topless on a beach and not women?

The suggestion isn't to ban cigs. It's to ban an action that has a detrimental effect on others (second hand smoke). While I'd prefer people quit for their own good I really don't care if they want to poison themselves, just don't poison me too. Here's the modification of your examples to show the difference...

Drinking and driving should be illegal because drunk drivers may hit others. No one says you can't drink, just don't drive.

Cars should have to have emission controls to protect the air others breath. You can have a car, but it should be in decent mechanical condition (and road worthy).

Shooting people with guns should be banned. You can own a gun, you just can't use it to intentionally harm someone else.

I don't really have a response to the airplane thing but I believe they've shown that its lower emissions than if those people drove in cars...

Shooting people with guns should be banned. You can own a gun, you just can't use it to intentionally harm someone else.

This is a great idea with an exception, if they break into my house they become fair game.

The National Institutes of Health has just released the results of a $200 million research study completed under a grant to Johns Hopkins.The new study has found that women who carry a little extra weight live longer than the men who mention it.

This beats the heck out of those worthless Brinks Security or ADT alarm signs.

Attachments

My new yard sign.

Security picture.jpg (56.14 KiB) Viewed 9519 times

The National Institutes of Health has just released the results of a $200 million research study completed under a grant to Johns Hopkins.The new study has found that women who carry a little extra weight live longer than the men who mention it.

Interesting dilemma..."I don't hurt anyone by what I do.." We hear that all the time, but usually the one who says it IS doing something that hurts others. But I don't see that cigarette smoke pollutes any more than car exhaust and that cigs thrown on the ground are worse than smashed beer bottles, or trash dumped in an illegal area.And as far as broken homes and destroyed lives and families and societal break-up, I think we can easily say that alcohol drinking, doping, injecting, snorting and swallowing mind-altering drugs, gambling, porn addiction, adultery, thievery, rape, incest, etc. do more to wreck others than smoking, which our society seems to pick on more than the others. (I can't stand nasty sounding and profanity-laden music or gross gory movies with the same or virtual games or constant swearing/nasty speech and off-color jokes, but there is no law against these in our land).I did not mention pedophilia and child abuse, but these seem to be the two that are picked on more than smoking, drunk driving and even murder.And of course, only the lifers say anything about about abortion and euthanasia--and the atheists work overtime to remove religion. Though I would say if we as a nation have to keep two "vices", perhaps we would do best to keep religion and smoking and dispense with the others. (I by the way do not view religion as a vice, just mentioning that much of our culture does). If I had to choose between guys who did any of the following above, I would take the religious guy any day, and failing that, the one that smokes--as long as he smokes outside and uses the butt can I would provide--over ANY guy who was into any of the rest of the stuff I mentioned. It's easier to ignore a guy smoking outside than it is one who is abusive, or drinks heavily, or does criminal activity (murder, rape, drugs, etc), or is into sexual perversion, loves sick movies or games or music, can't keep the speech clean for the most part, or puts the family in constant debt (gambler), etc. (And by saying I don't like bad speech or violence I don't mean a guy can't get angry or protect his family in case of a break in or being attacked by animals or people, but I think you get the picture). Smoking seems small bananas compared to a lot of other things that we Americans do.

"The measure of a man's character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out"-Macaulay